Sheridan has just given a speech where he uses the argument that "as long as at least one person refuses to bow down," then the tyrant won't have gained control.

The interrogator says, "But can he [the one person who refuses to bow down] win?"

And Sheridan says, "Every time I say... NO!"

So I want to know, did Boxleitner screw his line up here? Or (the explanation I would rather hope for) is there some deep significance to this... It sure seems like there is something deeper when you watch it.

The bureaucratic aspect of this episode is precisely what makes it so chilling. To have the interrogator walk in with his briefcase, unpack it and distribute his papers on the table is deeply disturbing. He adopts an affable tone, even seemingly showing compassion, setting himself up as the good cop, the ally.

On the other hand there is the denial of responsibility: "I can't be held responsible for the consequences"; "I have no control... it's out of my hands". Doesn't that sound like Mollari in past days?! One thing we have been shown is that the good guys are willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

This is not a pleasant, entertaining episode to watch, but it's one of the best.

I feel it's kind of an unreasonably clean 1950s view of torture. Where are the cattle prods to the 'nads,? the rapes? the dismemberments? The physical violence? The idea that torture is just "Let's humiliate him and confuse him until he gives in" is not only completely unrealistic, but needlessly gung-ho and John Wayney. It does disservice to the millions of people who've been tortured by basically saying they're weak. "They broke you? It's because you didn't say 'No' one more time. Therefore it's your fault, ya' lousy, stinkin' yellowbelly traitor!" "Just say No" doesn't work for drugs, and it doesn't work for torture. Sorry.

And the fact is that nobody, nobody, nobody makes it through without giving in. The US Military has long-recognized that any information a person happens to know when captured by the enemy is always compromised. It's why people who know really sensitive information carry suicide pills in situations why they're at risk. And in training for these things the US Military does - or at least did in the 1980s - advise people to just tell their captors anything wanted to know. They *WILL* find out eventually, and why put yourself through all that for no reason?

The bureaucratic aspect of this episode is precisely what makes it so chilling. To have the interrogator walk in with his briefcase, unpack it and distribute his papers on the table is deeply disturbing. He adopts an affable tone, even seemingly showing compassion, setting himself up as the good cop, the ally.

On the other hand there is the denial of responsibility: "I can't be held responsible for the consequences"; "I have no control... it's out of my hands". Doesn't that sound like Mollari in past days?! One thing we have been shown is that the good guys are willing to accept responsibility for their actions.

This is not a pleasant, entertaining episode to watch, but it's one of the best.

Those interrogations, as well as Ministry of Peace and Ministry of Truth, were from 1984. Sometimes I wonder, 23th century librarians are sucks at their job. They manage to lost all copy of the book.

The bureaucratic aspect of this episode is precisely what makes it so chilling. To have the interrogator walk in with his briefcase, unpack it and distribute his papers on the table is deeply disturbing. He adopts an affable tone, even seemingly showing compassion, setting himself up as the good cop, the ally.

I'm honestly not entirely sure how I feel about this episode. It's uncomfortable to watch, but I don't HATE it. I also don't love it. I do like that the whole episode takes place inside this facility, so that we're all right there with Sheridan. I also really like the nice-looking man with his packaged lunch doing the interrogating, as other people have mentioned above.

Republibot makes some good points upthread. A) It IS a very clean form of torture. Aside from the initial beating, no one even touches Sheridan at all, other than to drag him where they want him. I disagree that that is necessarily unrealistic, though. Perhaps torturers in the 23rd century have decided they don't NEED to get their hands dirty to get what they want. They have Sheridan on whatever drugs those are, they are depriving him of food and sleep and he's getting quite delusional as we see at the start of the next episode. That might be all they need to do, and this way they can have it done by friendly-looking dudes in suits. No "pain technicians" required. B) If someone can stand up to torture and not give in to the torturer, it might make those who did give in seem "weak". I agree, and I agree it's unrealistic that Sheridan would stand up to it. But maybe he was never intended to stand up to it, he just got rescued before he gave in. Or possibly maybe this was supposed to show that Sheridan is in fact not a regular human anymore, which I would find somewhat problematic.